PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF MISSOURI SUNSHINE LAW
COMES NOW, Plaintiff REQUESTING PARTY, by and through his/her/their counsel, and for Plaintiff's Petition for Enforcement of the Missouri Sunshine Law and for Statutory Damages against Defendants GOVERNMENT BODY and CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS states as follows:
1. Plaintiff REQUESTING PARTY is a resident of the [County] residing at [Address].
2. Defendant GOVERNMENT BODY is a [state agency/county/municipality/other political subdivision] with its principal place of business located in [County] at [Address].
3. Defendant CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS is a resident of the [County] residing at [Address].
4. Based on information and belief, Defendant GOVERNMENT BODY duly appointed Defendant CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS as the Custodian of Records for Defendant GOVERNMENT BODY to respond to requests for access to public records pursuant to a written compliance policy. A true and correct copy of the Missouri Sunshine Compliance Policy is attached hereto as Exhibit No. 1 and is incorporated by reference herein.
5. On or about [Date], Plaintiff REQUESTING PARTY made and delivered a written request for access to certain public records to Defendant CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS as the Custodian of Records of Defendant GOVERNMENT BODY. A true and correct copy of the Public Records Request and Proof of Service is attached hereto as Exhibit No. 2 and is incorporated by reference herein.
6. On or about [Date], Defendant CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS as the Custodian of Records of Defendant GOVERNMENT BODY replied to Plaintiff REQUESTING PARTY's written request for access to public records stating, in pertinent part, as follows: [insert response]. A true and correct copy of the Response to the Public Records Request is attached hereto as Exhibit No. 3 and is incorporated by reference herein.
7. Defendant CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS as the Custodian of Records for Defendant GOVERNMENT BODY and Defendant GOVERNMENT BODY have breached or otherwise failed to perform their statutory obligations under the Missouri Sunshine Law, Sec. 610.010 R.S.Mo. (2011), et seq., as follows:
a. Defendant GOVERNMENT BODY failed to maintain a reasonable written policy for handling public records request as required by Sec. 610.010 R.S.Mo. (2011). Specifically, the written policy maintained by Defendant GOVERNMENT BODY is inconsistent with [statutory citation] insofar as [state reason].
b. Defendant CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS as the Custodian of Records of Defendant GOVERNMENT BODY failed to respond to Plaintiff REQUESTING PARTY's written request for access to public records within three (3) business days after receipt of said written request in violation of Sec. 610.023 R.S.Mo. (2011).
c. Defendant CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS as the Custodian of Records of Defendant GOVERNMENT BODY failed to provide a detailed explanation of the cause for further delay in the production of the public records responsive to the written request for access to public records and failed to state the place and earliest time and date that the public records responsive to the written request for access to public records would be available for inspection in violation of Sec. 610.023 R.S.Mo. (2011).
d. Defendant CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS as the Custodian of Records of Defendant GOVERNMENT BODY failed to show "reasonable cause" why the public records responsive to the written request for access to public records could not be produced within the three (3) business day period in violation of Sec. 610.023 R.S.Mo. (2011).
e. Defendant CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS as the Custodian of Records of Defendant GOVERNMENT BODY wrongfully denied access to the following public records, to wit: [insert documents by date and title] in violation of Sec. 610.021 R.S.Mo. (2011). Specifically, [rebut each document showing that exceptions are not applicable].
f. Defendant CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS as the Custodian of Records of Defendant GOVERNMENT BODY failed to provide Plaintiff REQUESTING PARTY, after written request, a detailed written statement setting for the grounds for denial of access to the public records (including citations to the specific provisions of law under which access was denied) within three (3) business days after receipt of request for a written statement in violation of Sec. 610.023 R.S.Mo. (2011).
8. As a direct and proximate result of the failure of Defendant CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS and Defendant GOVERNMENT BODY to comply with the provisions of the Missouri Sunshine Law, Sec. 610.010 R.S.Mo. (2011), et seq., Plaintiff REQUESTING PARTY sustained actual damages as follows:
a. Plaintiff REQUESTING PARTY have retained and employed ABC Law Firm to enforce its right to access to public records under the Missouri Sunshine Law, Sec. 610.010 R.S.Mo. (2011), et seq., at an hourly rate of $200.00 per hour.
b. Plaintiff REQUESTING PARTY has incurred (or will incur) attorney's fees in the amount of $2,000.00 to enforce its right to access to public records under the Missouri Sunshine Law, Sec. 610.010 R.S.Mo. (2011), et seq. A true and correct copy of the legal billing statements are attached hereto as Exhibit No. 4 and are incorporated by reference herein.
9. In addition to attorney's fee, Plaintiff REQUESTING PARTY requests the imposition of statutory civil penalties against Defendant CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS and Defendant GOVERNMENT BODY as follows:
a. $1,000.00 for knowing violations of the Missouri Sunshine Law, Sec. 610.010 R.S.Mo. (2011), et seq., and/or
b. $5,000.00 for purposeful violations of the Missouri Sunshine Law, Sec. 610.010 R.S.Mo. (2011), et seq.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff REQUESTING PARTY prays the Court to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff REQUESTING PARTY and against Defendant CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS and Defendant GOVERNMENT BODY, for an Order compelling Defendant CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS and Defendant GOVERNMENT BODY to immediately produce all documents responsive to Plaintiff REQUESTING PARTY'sPARTY's attorney's fees and costs incurred herein, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.
